Proportion of false-positive follow-up FDG-PET scans in lymphoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Hugo J. A. Adams*, Thomas C. Kwee

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)
253 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the false-positive proportion of follow-up 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in lymphoma patients who initially achieved an end-of-treatment complete remission, using biopsy as reference standard.

Medline was searched for original studies, studies were methodologically evaluated and results were meta analytically summarized. Proportion of false-positive results ranged between 9.5%-90.0%, with a weighted summary proportion (random effects) of 42.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.0%-58.0%). A separate subgroup analysis in symptomatic patients only again revealed a relatively high summary proportion of false positive follow-up FDG-PET of 37.5% (random effects). In conclusion, the false-positive proportion of follow-up FDG-PET in lymphoma patients who initially achieved an end-of-treatment complete remission is high and remains high when a combination of clinical symptoms and follow-up FDG-PET is used. Therefore, biopsy remains compulsory and follow-up FDG-PET alone may be regarded as unreliable to define progression-free survival.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)73-81
Number of pages9
JournalCritical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
Volume141
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sept-2019

Keywords

  • Biopsy
  • Lymphoma
  • Follow-up
  • Meta-analysis
  • Positron emission tomography
  • Surveillance
  • POSITRON-EMISSION-TOMOGRAPHY
  • B-CELL LYMPHOMA
  • 1ST COMPLETE REMISSION
  • HODGKIN-LYMPHOMA
  • RESPONSE ASSESSMENT
  • PROGNOSTIC VALUE
  • RELAPSE
  • DISEASE
  • INTERIM
  • UTILITY

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Proportion of false-positive follow-up FDG-PET scans in lymphoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this